460 Budget Build for Fuel Mileage

Hey guys! Been a while, I hope everyone is well.
Okay, I know it's been talked about before, and it's a bit of an oxymoron anyway to talk fuel mileage and big block anything, but I'm not looking for 20 or more miles per gallon, but maybe as much as 16 or so highway. Not concerned with in town driving as it's a losing proposition no matter what. Just want to concentrate on highway efficiency.
The vehicle in question is an '89 F-150 2wd short bed, Toploader 4-speed, 3.08 rear gears.
I have a .030 over 460 with around 200 miles on it that got water in a couple cylinders (this is the engine from my Cougar after the engine bay fire) and it screwed up the bore. Hopefully going .040 will clean it up as I have a set of pistons available to use.
The heads I have are actually a set of 370 industrial heads purchased from Paul Kane. The ports have been cleaned up, base model 429/460 valves have been installed. The combustion chamber looks smaller than D0VE heads. A fire groove has been cut in the chambers.
The camshaft I have is a Crane 216/228 @.050 .518/.513 lift and 112 LSA.
I have either a stock cast iron intake worked over by Paul, or a Performer to use.
Headers or Police Interceptor exhaust manifolds.
Carb to be determined.

What do you guys think? Could this be a decent mileage engine?

As always, any input is greatly appreciated.

My 75 f-150 would get 15-16 with a good tune up if you drove it easy. It was bone stock except for the holley 750 dp. Its been a long time but i think it averaged 12-13

Small headers and the factory iron manifold would be my choice.

Ignition and carb choice will be very important.

Wheel and tire choice is going to be big too… noting big and heavy

Anything to help areodynamics Will benifit it greatly too. Headlight covers? Bed cover? Small mirrors?

A lot of people ignore all the stuff outside of the engine that greatly affect milage.

Double up!

I’d also look at the camshaft…… need to figure out where your rpm will be at at 55-65 with the combo and cam for it.

Talk with Randy Malick about economy cams and what he can get you that will work for the conditions. It will probably be counted ituotive to the performance stuff we are used to seeing.

dfree383 wrote:Small headers and the factory iron manifold would be my choice.

Ignition and carb choice will be very important.

Wheel and tire choice is going to be big too… noting big and heavy

Anything to help aerodynamics Will benefit it greatly too. Headlight covers? Bed cover? Small mirrors?

A lot of people ignore all the stuff outside of the engine that greatly affect milage.

Thanks Dave. Yeah, I'm aware of the external items you mentioned in regard to mileage, big tires and wheels, aerodynamics and whatnot. Driving habits as well.
For this discussion I'd like to concentrate on just the improvements to the engine itself in terms of improved miles per gallon.
For the record regarding the wheels, I'm running the stock pizza cutters. I'm pretty sure every late model car or truck on the road has bigger wheels than my truck. lol.

dfree383 wrote:I’d also look at the camshaft…… need to figure out where your rpm will be at at 55-65 with the combo and cam for it.

Talk with Randy Malick about economy cams and what he can get you that will work for the conditions. It will probably be counted ituotive to the performance stuff we are used to seeing.

That was going to be my next question, could the cam be improved upon in this situation.
Thanks again.

Just checked my old Crane catalogue and according to it, 2400-3000 is optimum cruise RPM at 60 miles per hour for this cam. Also, according to the specs found within said catalogue, with my 3.08 gears and 28-inch-tall tires, my cruise RPM at 60 is 2218, so a little out of the window of optimum cruise RPM.
Not sure how much of a difference that would make.
However, since I'm attempting to squeeze every bit of mileage out of this thing, it may make a difference.

These two should go well with your Combo, I Think.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/314886151159

^ Autolite 4100 Large Venturi Carburetor.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/325962423413?epid=191797018&hash=item4be4dfdc75:g:K3EAAOSwDLllnTHn&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwAF4CmChYr2nMelq5rDzrOMdB4EdAGqZ8cZ7wtw9jgrm58u9EfNRq1WIEkZULDqTFqEbcDIA0QcF2zYU0lJI803fYoHqRnAuD%2FoPszf7CRMZhoSJenTXEUFORnCjkBoPU1xK%2FBJbSCllfT6F6HU%2B4KAMn0ejzzcIK3N0hrCFV4C9xjUDF3zjCems48GgTMBYN5h3Gxg%2BDNpHCt5ByZQ8ArdL4UNkqRe277duvHE1RaYEiG%2Fn187SnhAzp7sbx%2BpqGA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR5Ty_eGdYw

I would also get a Skinny Tall 31 to 33 Inch Tire, For Best Highway Mileage with That Gear.

CompCams Cam and Lifter Kit.

210/218  .514"/.514" 111 LSA If You Want to Step The Cam Down a Notch. Good Price Too.

Those AutoLite Carburetors are Fuel Mizers Also.

I’d look at carbs that are very tunable and have tuning parts available.

Imo That leads to Either a Holley Variety with annular boosters, Carter Variety like the AVS, or even
I dare say a Qjet.

4100’s and 4300’s are not bad carbs they are just very limited in tuneability and parts

A Factory 302/351/460 4160 600 could be a good start.

Sorry about my bad spelling too……

supervel45 wrote:These two should go well with your Combo, I Think.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/314886151159

^ Autolite 4100 Large Venturi Carburetor.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/325962423413?epid=191797018&hash=item4be4dfdc75:g:K3EAAOSwDLllnTHn&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwAF4CmChYr2nMelq5rDzrOMdB4EdAGqZ8cZ7wtw9jgrm58u9EfNRq1WIEkZULDqTFqEbcDIA0QcF2zYU0lJI803fYoHqRnAuD%2FoPszf7CRMZhoSJenTXEUFORnCjkBoPU1xK%2FBJbSCllfT6F6HU%2B4KAMn0ejzzcIK3N0hrCFV4C9xjUDF3zjCems48GgTMBYN5h3Gxg%2BDNpHCt5ByZQ8ArdL4UNkqRe277duvHE1RaYEiG%2Fn187SnhAzp7sbx%2BpqGA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR5Ty_eGdYw

CompCams Cam and Lifter Kit.

210/218  .514"/.514" 111 LSA If You Want to Step The Cam Down a Notch. Good Price Too.

Those AutoLite Carburetors are Fuel Mizers Also.

Those Autolite carbs come highly recommended over on the FE forum.
Think I'd like a little more bias on the exhaust duration than that cam supplies. Also going to stick with Crower cam saver lifters. I had excellent results with those and have heard nothing but good from others who have used them.

The exhaust bias may not be what you want, like I said economy is counter intuitive to what we’ve been conditioned to believe for performance.

Resist the mass programing!

Maybe sell the Comp Lifters off? BBF Cams are Sim Pickens Now.

Very good friend of mine ran a 4100 in a 1972 F100 Short Bed with a 289 Three on the Tree and a 275 gear and he said he got 20 MPG on the Highway. He Never BS'ed Either.

Personally I Think a 429 would do better but, It's not worth it I guess since you have the 460.

If you go with a 600 Holley 4160 Look for a Ford Direct Repacement. The Primary metering blocks are usually more Emissions Calibrated and they can help a little over a 1850 List# The First Gen. List 9834 I had got Excellent Mileage and Had a 73 Jet Equiv. Metering Plate in the Secondary's with 642 Close Tolerance Primary gets. IE More Fuel on The Back and Less on The Front with a Stiff Black Secondary Spring, Instead of the Sileve 1850 Spring.

The Q-Jet or 4100 would Probably do even better then that.

dfree383 wrote:I’d look at carbs that are very tunable and have tuning parts available.

Imo That leads to Either a Holley Variety with annular boosters, Carter Variety like the AVS, or even
I dare say a Qjet.

4100’s and 4300’s are not bad carbs they are just very limited in tuneability and parts

A Factory 302/351/460 4160 600 could be a good start.

I do have a factory Holley/Ford 600 from an '87 F250 460 I could try after a good inspection/ cleaning.

dfree383 wrote:Sorry about my bad spelling too……

No worries here, Dave.
If you're referring to the words I corrected on my reply to you above, I thought I was correcting my own post as I pushed send. Shows you how with it I am. lol.

dfree383 wrote:The exhaust bias may not be what you want, like I said economy is counter intuitive to what we’ve been conditioned to believe for performance.

Resist the mass programing!

You're blowin' my mind, man. lol.

On the factory 4160 you’ll want to do a secondary metering block in at a minimum and some other tuning tricks, may want to replace both blocks with billet ones that have tunable emulsions and other features if the budget allows.

The carb and ignition tuning are going to make or break ya on this

That 1987 Ford F-250 Carburetor is a 4180 Holley Series with a Dual Stage Power Valve and Annular Primary Boosters.

You Could Give it a Try.

I would get a Green Accelerator pump Diaphram and a New Power Valve. The Alky Usually Dry Rots Both and They get Hard and Crack and Leak. The Metering Block Gasket is Different then the 4150/4160's also and if I remember the Base Gasket Also.

I Think durning the 1970's gas crunch Edelbrock aimed the original 460 Torquer at improving fuel mileage, with micro intake ports.

Don't know how it would match up with 370 Peanut ports, just food for thought.

They can usually be had much cheaper then this one below. Just for port size comparison.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285569936288?fits=Make%3AFord&epid=1022972540&hash=item427d4b6ba0:g:9qkAAOSwpG5lXQet&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8C3gkubA7TFKUV4nOVFOeTCbjyMu875V7Ho8rfxT8fPFl%2FTUhi4Q5yNl%2FJK1aZd8GWx%2FihlWxg49rXld1g8iZQTIxn7cR8x8I%2FMeuLt6fj2sdsLt%2BeyLAu6LqErOMoPaCu6Th6PixPtp%2Bd6HYNFXeEfje6aKwfzjzWcBjokRXBRsXKhbCAEtZfSGALp%2FzZQEJQan5Z0JG%2BiWm1jbtwTdCJ3Vi5PJJbavnFEuFZSqlJR%2Br%2FV4%2BoKMgKa5uQ9nSpifbjITtqalAE0n6%2FH5b3tNrgxIV2JhYj08AVzzQgrkKI0Oblnv23uTO1ecWdYD9IDZrg%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMxL3h551j

I should mention I do have a 302 I could build but I really want to make a 460 work here for a couple reasons.
1) I like being different and having a 460 that got great fuel economy would be relatively different.
2) I'd miss the torque.


Supervel, you mentioned a 429 earlier. I seem to recall having a conversation over on the other forum I believe, and if I recall correctly, the MPG difference between a 429 and 460 was pretty much nil.
That said, I think I have a 429 core crank somewhere.

supervel45 wrote:I Think durning the 1970's gas crunch Edelbrock aimed the original 460 Torquer at improving fuel mileage, with micro intake ports.

Don't know how it would match up with 370 Peanut ports, just food for thought.

They can usually be had much cheaper then this one below. Just for port size comparison.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285569936288?fits=Make%3AFord&epid=1022972540&hash=item427d4b6ba0:g:9qkAAOSwpG5lXQet&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8C3gkubA7TFKUV4nOVFOeTCbjyMu875V7Ho8rfxT8fPFl%2FTUhi4Q5yNl%2FJK1aZd8GWx%2FihlWxg49rXld1g8iZQTIxn7cR8x8I%2FMeuLt6fj2sdsLt%2BeyLAu6LqErOMoPaCu6Th6PixPtp%2Bd6HYNFXeEfje6aKwfzjzWcBjokRXBRsXKhbCAEtZfSGALp%2FzZQEJQan5Z0JG%2BiWm1jbtwTdCJ3Vi5PJJbavnFEuFZSqlJR%2Br%2FV4%2BoKMgKa5uQ9nSpifbjITtqalAE0n6%2FH5b3tNrgxIV2JhYj08AVzzQgrkKI0Oblnv23uTO1ecWdYD9IDZrg%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMxL3h551j

The 370 heads I have, have the same ports as the base 429/460 heads.
I bought the heads and modified stock iron intake as a package from Paul Kane. I'm hoping he'll see this thread and post up. If I recall correctly, again, I think he had these on a big 1970s luxury car that got pretty darn good highway mileage.

1EFF100 wrote:I should mention I do have a 302 I could build but I really want to make a 460 work here for a couple reasons.
1) I like being different and having a 460 that got great fuel economy would be relatively different.
2) I'd miss the torque.


Supervel, you mentioned a 429 earlier. I seem to recall having a conversation over on the other forum I believe, and if I recall correctly, the MPG difference between a 429 and 460 was pretty much nil.
That said, I think I have a 429 core crank somewhere.

Well a 1 MPG increase at 9 MPG is 10%, LoL.  I have run both and I think a 429 is worth closer to two MPG, Maybe.

If You Could Get your Auto/Light Truck accesseries to work on a 370, which uses a 3.59" stroke 429 lenght stroke crank, I bet it would do even better and still be torquey.

It's Never going to get the mileage of a small block though, in my experience.

The 370 I had, had peanut ports and smaller valves.

It's good to go against the grain nowadays, as half the people out there seem to have gone full on retard, though

I’d just use the 460 stuff, better piston avalibilty, little more compression

Compression and tight quench = efficiency


Yea this build it totaly agains the grain and it will not be fast but if fast isn’t your goal…..

I’m thinking this thing will be at peak hp by 3500-4000 and make goons of torque at low rpm.

Keep that in mind when doing valve springs, lighter = less friction, but lower rpm.

1EFF100 wrote:Just checked my old Crane catalogue and according to it, 2400-3000 is optimum cruise RPM at 60 miles per hour for this cam. Also, according to the specs found within said catalogue, with my 3.08 gears and 28-inch-tall tires, my cruise RPM at 60 is 2218, so a little out of the window of optimum cruise RPM.
Not sure how much of a difference that would make.
However, since I'm attempting to squeeze every bit of mileage out of this thing, it may make a difference.

I would like where 33's would put me with a Light Short bed with 3.08's and a 1/1 Top Loader 4Spd. at 60 MPH on the Highway RPM Wise. 1882

http://www.wallaceracing.com/calc-rpm.php

The Old Edelbrock Performer Plus 204/214 Camshaft, which is made by many other Companies would also be worth consideration with this deal.

Like Dave Said Carburetion and Timing Curve will make or break you, along with camshaft Choice.

Wind resistance and the weight of a truck really hurts too, along with prolonged Idle time. Takes alot more gas to idle a Big Block 460 then a 289 or 302

The 370 heads I sold to you were re-fitted with 2.08"/1.72" valves with 11/32" stems.  They were used on my 1985 F250, and I built that engine with towing in mind, less so for fuel economy.  Except for the heads, intake, cam, and KB138 pistons, it was made up of bone stock parts all the way down to the OEM emissions systems and even passed CA smog check.  It managed 14 MPG with original stock single exhaust, etc.

The 1973 Marquis that got 22 MPG used specially prepared D3VE heads (among other things), not the 370 heads.

The 1972 Marquis I bought about a year ago will get a 460 build that I hope will get 24 MPG.

While both the 429 and 460 have benefits unto themselves for fuel economy, I think the 460 is the better way to go--you can utilize a smaller camshaft while still maintaining adequate port velocity on the big 385 Series intake runners, and those things can make for better peak efficiency at the low-2000s cruise rpm of your vehicle.

The 216/228/112 cam is way too big (and all wrong) for your fuel economy aspirations.

I'll try giving you a call later this week and/or you can call me to discuss your build--I'm still playing catch-up in the shop and have little time to be in front of a keyboard